Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
Some works depict vampires as requiring very little blood and/or being able to subsist off of animals or reserved blood that is no longer viable for transfusion without issue.

Beyond that, depending on the dietary needs of the vampire in question compared to their average power level and the temperament, desires, and goals thereof it's possible that a given vampire could do more good overall than the harm they do.

For an arbitrary example, I pulled out of my ass just now, if a given vampire only needs to kill one human every couple of years and thus has thus luxury to only target serial killers and the like and do proper investigation to make sure that they get the right guy.
And now you're ignoring the point of using vampires. Heck, Masquerade got this spot on and Requiem doubled down on it: even though kindred can survive by feeding once a week (although the trail of corpses would be good hunter bait) there's many reasons why they'd want to do so far more regularly.

Because if you're using vampires* they're a metaphor for something dangerous, something parasitic, or both. Hell Dracula is both the aristocracy and STIs. There's a reason that as times have moved on vampires have gone from lurking in castles to surveying dance floors, and it's not because it makes them less harmless. The Cullen's are, loosely, a bunch of upper class recovering addicts getting a sense of superiority from both those factors and Edward is clearly a partner driven toxic by their privilege. Even at their most benign they still deal with addiction, due to the fact that they conflate feeding and ****ing

Also frankly your example assumes that killing serial killers isn't reprehensible, and that's probably the least of the issues with Batvamp. Is it better than the vamps who commit serial date rape? That's probably not board appropriate.

* outside of comedic contexts.